Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-encrypted-pdmv2-05
"nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com" <nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com> Wed, 31 January 2024 12:44 UTC
Return-Path: <nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05E98C15108C for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 04:44:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.904
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.904 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yahoo.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gtH6k0ybV-KH for <ippm@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 04:43:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sonic320-28.consmr.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (sonic320-28.consmr.mail.ne1.yahoo.com [66.163.191.90]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8D264C15108B for <ippm@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 04:43:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s2048; t=1706705038; bh=qdqNdk3uHMaweUUeRuCll5OywOGNFFtgq1NMIHRCRXA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:From:Subject:Reply-To; b=Qe1IgvL5BnMAiCvmhsYnK81JXCI17qQQ7tCTVxz0VXrr/P7nDbq0ou/qen/VCg5SwtGYtyqBLrqRcZbGMqoKaJyDBVFZhxZY2xrXv21cDxd/Zbcp3VC265hQ7H/NnQvbuA01NeJUxP5Wb9BdyN3ERxp3fEdLhwZSUboY+pBrFgdG2nYU5DHqU94d+vpjl7KOGYAlwDMu2epXQs7SiAUGUcZkpgz8WtA8OVtiPIYEcMhTJHiiyr5C6BhLeB2khwQCiRIAsjmmrSzTstTpc7v2vyGLNZa+6q7LN4hRx6fD6ltJAlIFzmMSVuGNtL6nsaWCxP69BrA+gAAIp/LXLFpAdA==
X-SONIC-DKIM-SIGN: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s2048; t=1706705038; bh=uzHTZGMndAPt98KMODh9mn4Tx+bmuHezJ0VlkGf5g7Z=; h=X-Sonic-MF:Date:From:To:Subject:From:Subject; b=L4wLkKIueMqRaTAqD76mMC59suvrb0fbXEAo3Azg+gG5jvRBkR88vYFSP7248pFkt0rC5PcD7Zu33+gW5tytXUc6zV4ZR5otfcVwE15Iqz4m4iHnz8orhWv5ZolUsmRpO/QO3x1jKVqW8Vlx/JPP0JFhzBq7lDsoiMRFhJoYMuXsXkpcl9A0yd7tddrgwYqiPWwgyhHiDSOBknkwESYjwf4yi1qBMZNhmkZcc3nKKx0E1v1z83kG5iXsJHSL22ir7jI54slhiUJ16CTmJ5oVQM0xLtGc+9KswH39hVSWJrXW4lJbpuYh362fRv1ztsOiZyCBSq7fwb7099WSGp6cZA==
X-YMail-OSG: MJXw5XwVM1mm_lDsmQTlwTX2VEMMb_29jXpp0VoPZu62iWMwm1pe7GGefl02ZxJ wjfXPLJvwYd.ozT5U9cuSpu8Kaw0v_hMjV2qL4HmKjwFq2qCBvMwOanWRR2iRavCTv8TJnDNLX.Z xAOjJQf9KhzkbgwXzXZNEkSUY7X7_kO4u24IyIF3FKDPw1Cw9.SzMapSShgoGOkMJirIOyF.BkBp cYYcy.pAnRBGHruSBnrPMyepXxj9RgvstBxmEM3TDrpF_qLsi1NTMsQOZsl8NKgBoqBN0tnLnEDp _gMBtD7MtNRte3WmpUsZobiFTBth3i0_YglrudbNNgQSUElNpU3njj6.39Q8diatoSk8FPMZkgiy WDypByRGb_F3W_uXjXCCFiwT_HEht4S.SeG6ZeoIPDt4iNaXnTYMpWAQIMn2NAhLgVkU9iE_k0WP ETaQ75hgQsbImoZTfGm8bwmX54_jctCz6PlvsAAWj_YKTFKpSuv4.G6JtAA8BVwA7ONqlXpiBgoI icMhuWRSBaZsDQkx9FL.O9HYz2vqpGB3VMtYcnScuJr4GDmIASh30GEISAzwvfCOzCR878YFwpnm wdAlARnDxyo_vckJZgqBTAyQzTb8sIOTqXWOq7_2LvAF0IIRR4PkhJQIWrsYJmpptorGs3b7t4gP zxekflxvLDPtxuFOe4_OiGSDtt._tG0vZUC5vBZ7KtsUZ35SR_kH389voDzg2gMPnk2gfjOYdPQO CQjJSGJQDOp5_tY0w.rucvX9FMl2_coY79QG1UtAqWIUCNiCMA6_Ado7ukHZoVlacdgr0LqPrSFr D.GPBeEzDXOQPXn8mNOullq8_6MOjo.O.MTqbr7u42tnHra.GjTnIC.o.j38vvtNinKrj8k9fdZW 0K8W56Lp0TX9qPnCuykID7ZT_K7juBxuZahPErvgodWzYkr1E8hiiMIhVECKG4WTCPeMTaiQDNRK MHOBOcOkhHClzSZi67EtN.2qm9ql6PjPSjnpQuX.zmZQa6nfstEGgW_y1lKV84K.ulgtCQ5dcdjG GC31QjpUjvo1jZBSgx8O75_v4g23ruFnRnuKdhHtXksJGTzzLhpj7VYqfeJHSffjp5w_Zs9kQnN3 B6XQYBqEKvA8GmDj4b8LiKFzNAbjMmS_yZG3N.0y0AC8aGBB_xtsd7wSuvKoBNK23FrSkfv3sccB AQ_D0lHsimZ5Sr.g4oxqTNEquC67aO1zt9cQjv4ZXRgGl6iYzyWEjDUabVuaS_8cJIKJEvVpKYmY it6i0nbfVygNUr32NM0n6LJvxqHqjRMBEDunbxJ6lknb.UBXnGHB0iZOI0vcm6TgHkFXvQOirOIP qnjHqFB2ZKt_E0W_ins55wEPgccAS3pH4P5vcF2bJYr9ti2QcMVbgRx0G93VQsTxQPvd1BVn4tFH 6W3jvDrLTqr7i2aOB0CXBJyh31ZyX.BLxBHdFNDGU3zBygwceyLTOokGmQwSioB19EbMLZPpgUA3 zGntD8EW2SswyLmlr0RsuKCChc819cqPcCKxz9jQfexuJwoL3UCe2bAsyw8ZfZf4KNfsx6j.1Zjt aWLQmv7tERJy3lgbKy0bgoR.hn6L8fjyvWjPrihLExKG_MkJPjxxpFx6OkA2UxojuBRr5IzCfkHn zZWWRS.b38npO8l2YSEigBk5a.dN4rZjFUw9yVUpNoJUIdgHDw9X1ya7dw4XBPN6j.6QXQqTE2A3 4lVo71GWrLc2NABqUtbEty0dVwC5M_sngYS9i0rWOPSCno6uP7lQ6sTavQNwvFa_5nAPkY4oKC05 GAxk2ZkbWIkctQ_.lMQ5MWumel4hdPs1XSUD4LUFRRTTeGjTYogteiGwVsTiUTkZ07NxQ90V26tf DgbQgp.fu2Af09dsHFp7clWdvrhrASd0CNjhpEYxOj4NPfmlUo2U.dQ438M_fQlUEcxOijBpi55i FsVLknJ3_oxHHhgD7qgKJk66eCq2b4pUD34KAIPYxXrxGebPv7EEfUYxVwRXKgdiHNqAJu5Txnte xgHJPDvGHQ4Oq.85wXRRybgvEhYY4iqXF1o6cdTOlnU68ZnPBJR6DC36goZ7TLWU8T6J.jrXHUr. V4f8HoiJ8IFNsSdTDddldUPlYdZrt0TJteWWdco8_coLxEN16SbGrdWjwjy4p5iZaFzqK8ivc6tM UmaUgW0PuqeY5W3LshfoIdHgsx1LgW278tedtn2wCOqbWunCiVAJYB8yqzLO5bb91vA9MvJcSf2Y txU93YlsMBxdSgG263EI9E.DpxTjRhixUOg24O6BG6CuKenSLhZfDwVdgfC_mXYXh2rQI23OREQz VTxcAdjiabptV
X-Sonic-MF: <nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com>
X-Sonic-ID: da39c145-58e8-4bc4-82da-7051c26c119f
Received: from sonic.gate.mail.ne1.yahoo.com by sonic320.consmr.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with HTTP; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 12:43:58 +0000
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 12:43:55 +0000
From: "nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com" <nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com>
To: Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <2076366995.3419874.1706705035221@mail.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAB75xn7__cjMrGWjTXv8-QgZ4+AoGiXWQAaJob0_zLJLOPbPzA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <61AC7432-55A9-4E65-A1FE-CB23B3B414B0@apple.com> <CAB75xn7__cjMrGWjTXv8-QgZ4+AoGiXWQAaJob0_zLJLOPbPzA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_3419873_1495583394.1706705035219"
X-Mailer: WebService/1.1.22046 YMailNorrin
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/uLaD7vr_inE1W_gyi4CuMMiAeXc>
Subject: Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-encrypted-pdmv2-05
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 12:44:04 -0000
Dhruv, Thanks for the thoughtful comments. Let us go over them thoroughly and we will come back with comments. Nalini Elkins CEO and Founder Inside Products, Inc. https://www.insidethestack.com PresidentIndustry Network Technology Councilhttps://www.industrynetcouncil.org On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 01:53:25 AM PST, Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, I support this work, but here are a few comments that should be handled before sending the I-D to our AD. ## Suggestions/Query * I am assuming that the procedures specified in RFC 8250 continue to apply. That should be stated explicitly. * Section 3, Is it correct to say the difference between a client and server is that it is the client that initiates the session? Maybe just state that and other properties are for any endpoint node. * Shouldn't there be some backward compatibility text to explain cases like -- what happens when a node does not understand PDMv2 and thus expected a length of 10 as per RFC 8250 but finds a different length. Also I wonder how one decides if a client should use PDM, unencrypted PDMv2 or encrypted PDMv2. There should be specific text that says that the server MUST respond with the same mechanism. Are all mechanisms mandatory to implement? Basically we need more text... ## Minor * Section 1, Consider changing Man-In-The-Middle to Machine-In-The-Middle as per https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/on-inclusive-language/ - Section 1, it would be good to introduce what PDMv2 is before stating "PDMv2 adds...". - Section 3, mentions terms pkX and skX but never use it, is there a reason they are defined? - Section 9, you are reusing the option type 0x0F defined in RFC 8250, you don't need to ask IANA to assign one! - Section A.1, is there a reference to the primary-secondary architecture mentioned? ## Nits * Section 1, s/current PDM/PDM [RFC8250]/ * Section 4.1, expand HPKE, KEM, KDF (you do that later on in section 5.4, but it should be done here). Also PSN. * Don't capitalize "CAN" as it is not a BCP14 keyword. Maybe use MAY? * Section 6.3, the formatting for field descriptions is hard to follow. * s/Reserved Bits/Reserved/ - add it MUST be set to zero on transmission and ignored on receipt. * s/RFC3552/[RFC3552]/ * Remove appendix B and C as they are empty Thanks! Dhruv On Tue, Jan 9, 2024 at 10:56 PM Tommy Pauly <tpauly=40apple.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: Hello IPPM, This email starts a Working Group Last Call for "IPv6 Performance and Diagnostic Metrics Version 2 (PDMv2) Destination Option”, draft-ietf-ippm-encrypted-pdmv2-05. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-encrypted-pdmv2/https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ippm-encrypted-pdmv2-05 Please review the document and send your comments in response to this email, along with whether you think the document is ready to progress. This last call will be three weeks long, and end on Tuesday, January 30. In parallel, we have requested another SECDIR review. Best,Tommy & Marcus_______________________________________________ ippm mailing list ippm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm
- Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-encrypted-pdm… Dhruv Dhody
- [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-encrypted-pdmv2-05 Tommy Pauly
- Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-encrypted-pdm… Tommy Pauly
- Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-encrypted-pdm… Mohit P. Tahiliani
- Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-encrypted-pdm… nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com
- Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-encrypted-pdm… Tommy Pauly
- Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-encrypted-pdm… nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com
- Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-encrypted-pdm… Hamilton, Robert
- Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-encrypted-pdm… nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com
- Re: [ippm] WGLC for draft-ietf-ippm-encrypted-pdm… nalini.elkins@insidethestack.com